QUOTE BY JJ: "Riddle me this, if the BOAC is not self-sufficient (as you and Barack claim is going to happen) and the BOAC does not have the money to proceed with the project, what funding options do they have?

What local body are they accountable to and are its members elected?"

The elected body that will finance IF and WHEN the airport board cannot is the City Council.... But what is misleading is the BOAC can obligate us to the FAA fully (by accepting grants that will have to be repaid if we do not proceed) before we ever need to come up with that money through the City Council / taxpayers. That is why legally there can be no referendum on this issue.

Here is video I have posted many times of one of the landowners asking this pertinent question and Bill Ernstes the airport president answering it.

QUOTE BY JJ: "So how many people believe that Jean Johannigman was railroaded by other members of the committee and forced to sign off on the findings?"Jean at no time said the other committee members railroaded me. What I said was the committee members were "lead" with the help of the BOAC engineers advice to a conclusion.

QUOTE BY JJ: Who cares if they were city residents or not? They are not the ones making the decisions, at that time the decision makers were the City of Greensburg AND Decatur County.

At that time no one even knew the City of Greensburg was going to take over the airport and the county was going to back out?

So the city formed the Airport commission back in 2007 and took over the airport. FACTS are interesting. Before 2007, the city and county had an agreement to have a joint aviation commission and that means in 2006 having county people on the "Second Site Commission" was a moot point except to spinners." END OF QUOTE BY JJ

I am glad you see it as not pertinent that more than the majority of that "committee" were county and not city residents who would never incur repercussions from their "help" on this committee.

Needless to say that two of those "committee" members went on to be a part of the CITY OF GREENSBURG BOARD OF AVIATION COMMISSIONERS...AND the MAJORITY of this City Board still does not live within the City limits or will incur the taxes from their decisions.

Here is a complete timeline of decisions being made with this airport expansion through this link.

QUOTE BY JJ: "Riddle me this, if the BOAC is not self-sufficient (as you and Barack claim is going to happen) and the BOAC does not have the money to proceed with the project, what funding options do they have?What local body are they accountable to and are its members elected?"The elected body that will finance IF and WHEN the airport board cannot is the City Council.... But what is misleading is the BOAC can obligate us to the FAA fully (by accepting grants that will have to be repaid if we do not proceed) before we ever need to come up with that money through the City Council / taxpayers. That is why legally there can be no referendum on this issue.Here is video I have posted many times of one of the landowners asking this pertinent question and Bill Ernstes the airport president answering it.http://youtu.be/pQwRuzTPsS8

Wait a minute. Haven't you said time and time again that 75% of these airports fall back on taxpayers. With the loss of Skydive Greensburg business and fuel sales, how could the BOAC have the money to proceed with the project?

I respectfully agree to disagree with your statement. According to my understanding, money will be needed for land acquisition first.

Land acquisition was also the first step of the Lincoln Street project. So no, I don't believe the BOAC can obligate us to the FAA without having any money to do so. If your numbers and the information you are presenting is correct, then the BOAC will not be self-sufficient and will need funding. But is the common council really the only option? I think you are overlooking some other interesting options.:)

Also I understood the FAA grants to be reimbursement grants. I was told by a BOAC member the FAA does not give you the money up front, you have to spend it first, which means you have to have it first to spend. If your wishes come true and the Greensburg airport is one of the 75%, they will need to get funding.

The sky is falling. The sky is falling.The sky is falling. The sky is falling.The sky is falling. The sky is falling.The sky is falling. The sky is falling.The sky is falling. The sky is falling.The sky is falling. The sky is falling.The sky is falling. The sky is falling.The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

I recommend the Common Council form an Aviation Authority and wash their hands of the airport and "Leave it to Beaver" (Jean). Then the BOAC can do whatever they want without any public input. Then Jean would have a real reason for concern.

<quoted text>Wait a minute. Haven't you said time and time again that 75% of these airports fall back on taxpayers. With the loss of Skydive Greensburg business and fuel sales, how could the BOAC have the money to proceed with the project?I respectfully agree to disagree with your statement. According to my understanding, money will be needed for land acquisition first.Land acquisition was also the first step of the Lincoln Street project. So no, I don't believe the BOAC can obligate us to the FAA without having any money to do so. If your numbers and the information you are presenting is correct, then the BOAC will not be self-sufficient and will need funding. But is the common council really the only option? I think you are overlooking some other interesting options.:)Also I understood the FAA grants to be reimbursement grants. I was told by a BOAC member the FAA does not give you the money up front, you have to spend it first, which means you have to have it first to spend. If your wishes come true and the Greensburg airport is one of the 75%, they will need to get funding.The sky is falling. The sky is falling.The sky is falling. The sky is falling.The sky is falling. The sky is falling.The sky is falling. The sky is falling.The sky is falling. The sky is falling.The sky is falling. The sky is falling.The sky is falling. The sky is falling.The sky is falling. The sky is falling.I recommend the Common Council form an Aviation Authority and wash their hands of the airport and "Leave it to Beaver" (Jean). Then the BOAC can do whatever they want without any public input. Then Jean would have a real reason for concern.

There are several ways this can be accomplished. There are some FAA funds that are usable for "land acquisition"...and if need be...I can go back through my video and find where Bill Ernstes (BOAC PRESIDENT) mentions in the meeting that they might seek EDIT , Rainy Day, or Riverboat funds from the City for BOAC use.

These funds are at the Mayor's discretion. The Mayor in the past has asked for the City Council's permission until Helen Gardner started stating her objection to his asking for their approval on funds he had discretion over and they legally did not.

Do you remember the note I posted earlier from Sandy Lyman of the FAA on if they pursued a new sight that the land acquisition and buildings would be eligible? This when the BOAC said they would not?

<quoted text>There are several ways this can be accomplished. There are some FAA funds that are usable for "land acquisition"...and if need be...I can go back through my video and find where Bill Ernstes (BOAC PRESIDENT) mentions in the meeting that they might seek EDIT , Rainy Day, or Riverboat funds from the City for BOAC use.These funds are at the Mayor's discretion. The Mayor in the past has asked for the City Council's permission until Helen Gardner started stating her objection to his asking for their approval on funds he had discretion over and they legally did not.Do you remember the note I posted earlier from Sandy Lyman of the FAA on if they pursued a new sight that the land acquisition and buildings would be eligible? This when the BOAC said they would not?

From the meetings I have attended I have not seen the major have discretionary power over rainy day or riverboats funds. Not sure that June would agree with you on that. Of course June and her opinion are going to be a moot points in a few more days too.

EDIT funds I would agree are used solely at the Mayors discretion. I felt it was a bad precedent for him to set asking the council's opinion on the use of EDIT funds.

<quoted text>From the meetings I have attended I have not seen the major have discretionary power over rainy day or riverboats funds. Not sure that June would agree with you on that. Of course June and her opinion are going to be a moot points in a few more days too.EDIT funds I would agree are used solely at the Mayors discretion. I felt it was a bad precedent for him to set asking the council's opinion on the use of EDIT funds.I would have to (Gasp) agree with Helen on this one.

My point is...there ARE ways they can obligate us BEFORE tax measures are put in place. They had to pursue it in this way otherwise the REFERENDUM LAW would have kicked in and the taxpayers would have gotten to vote on this issue.

Do you remember the note I posted earlier from Sandy Lyman of the FAA on if they pursued a new sight that the land acquisition and buildings would be eligible? This when the BOAC said they would not?

BTW, are you saying the the BOAC can commit to FAA funding before the public hearings?

You have to be careful how you word questions to the government. They are as slippery as eels, and you can ask the same question to several different people and get several different answers.

I have been told by BOAC members that with an existing airport unless there are environmental concerns that would prevent the airport from expanding where it is, the FAA would not pay for new gas tanks and hangers. Don't remember them mentioning land.

Which makes sense. The FAA has already invested funds in the current location. So if there is no findings of significant impact, then why would they want to abandon the current location, especially since a knowledgeable, highly respected group of individuals on the "Second Site Committee" found the current site is the best choice?

Perhaps the FAA will have a committee like the "Second Site Committee" that will issue biased (allegedly) findings? No I doubt it unless they invite you (MJJ) to be on the committee.

<quoted text>BTW, are you saying the the BOAC can commit to FAA funding before the public hearings?You have to be careful how you word questions to the government. They are as slippery as eels, and you can ask the same question to several different people and get several different answers.I have been told by BOAC members that with an existing airport unless there are environmental concerns that would prevent the airport from expanding where it is, the FAA would not pay for new gas tanks and hangers. Don't remember them mentioning land.Which makes sense. The FAA has already invested funds in the current location. So if there is no findings of significant impact, then why would they want to abandon the current location, especially since a knowledgeable, highly respected group of individuals on the "Second Site Committee" found the current site is the best choice?Perhaps the FAA will have a committee like the "Second Site Committee" that will issue biased (allegedly) findings? No I doubt it unless they invite you (MJJ) to be on the committee.

You know I have not said that...in fact I have posted the "timeline" of importance to the Public many, many times to your chagrin....

Here it is yet again....we are currently in the "environmental Assessment" (EA) of the FAA timeline. The BOAC has submitted their info for the EA and is waiting for questions or any additional info the FAA may request. If there is none. The FAA will either (based on the information) be able to issue or not issue a FONSI which is a finding of no significant environmental impact.

If a FONSI is issued....THEN there will be a public meeting at which the public will have a chance to make meaningful objection (by FAA standards) to the FAA. This is the part we (the concerned citizens of Dec County) have hired the Federal attorney / Aviation Specialist and former FAA attorney to address on our behalf.

There is a 30 day period minimum of appeal after this meeting...it can be slightly longer depending on what the FAA puts in place.

If we and the public can appeal meaningfully to the FAA on this issue it can be thrown into yet another step. If not...then the FONSI will stand and the BOAC will now be eligible to apply for FAA grants for the expansion. Once they receive the first grant towards the expansion ...that is the point of no return....unless of course we immediatley return the funds...as to not go forward at the point of the receival of the grant ...then the FAA would demand repayment. Each grant recieved comes with a 20 year obligation to comply with FAA standards and compliances.

Operation of the airport and the expense involved is where these airports specifically (according to the info I have previously provided) fall back on the taxpayers to support. Again if Greenwood IN who has a comparably sized airport to what they want here ...but with four times the population and is a bedroom community of Indinapolis cannot afford their current airport.....how can we?

we currently have a 32 acre airport. they want to expand to in excess of 240 acrs....just think of just the mowing on that area?

Then there is snow removal. While they just purchased $180,000.00 snow removal equipment with grant money from the FAA...now they have the problem of no where to house it....and then who will operate it? all for free?

these are just two tiny examples.....

I can only hope they look before they leap. Times are tough and every dollar counts.

With so many cities looking to sell or close their airports because of the economy...and considering Brack Rayles stats....is this the best investment of dollars for our community?

NO!'i' don't mind being ignored, they've both done it ever since 'i've known them...It's that old adage, hurry up and say what "U" got to "I'm thinking of a reply while your doing it!"=*= "U" see they don't even hear what 'i' say -cause they're thinking of a response before 'i' say anything (based on what they said last)=*=

NO!'i' don't mind being ignored, they've both done it ever since 'i've known them...It's that old adage, hurry up and say what "U" got to "I'm thinking of a reply while your doing it!"=*= "U" see they don't even hear what 'i' say -cause they're thinking of a response before 'i' say anything (based on what they said last)=*=

NO!'i' don't mind being ignored, they've both done it ever since 'i've known them...It's that old adage, hurry up and say what "U" got to "I'm thinking of a reply while your doing it!"=*= "U" see they don't even hear what 'i' say -cause they're thinking of a response before 'i' say anything (based on what they said last)=*=

NO FIRST RESPONDER!...now 'i'm beginning to get {'alittle upset"!"}Never fear! "( 1 )" reason 'i'm here is in defense of both those you hear, expressing their "whatever" in public, because this is what 'i' fear, neither one will become creditable and should change gear, to salvage their intelligence and show it on hereand 'to this''i' will always adhere...

<quoted text>NO FIRST RESPONDER!...now 'i'm beginning to get {'alittle upset"!"}Never fear! "( 1 )" reason 'i'm here is in defense of both those you hear,expressing their "whatever" in public, because this is what 'i' fear,neither one will become creditable and should change gear,to salvage their intelligence and show it on hereand 'to this''i' will always adhere...

Sorry Hillbilly,but I take no commitment lightly. I have committed to being the spokesperson for the Concerned Citizens of Decatur County and according to what our Attorney said in the GDN we need to continue putting information out there for the public until after the FONSI is either issued or not. Then he takes over.

The publics awareness has to be kept up to date...so they do not miss the Public meeting...their one chance to object.

I can appreciate 'all that' and 'i' understand your concern and interest, but it should be done in a positive way not through defending yourself against anyone.This does nothing for your creditability, and lowers your esteem for many.jj,'i'd give you the same advice...it's just what 'i' think - no offense taken 'i' hope!

I can appreciate 'all that' and 'i' understand your concern and interest, but it should be done in a positive way not through defending yourself against anyone.This does nothing for your creditability, and lowers your esteem for many.jj,'i'd give you the same advice...it's just what 'i' think - no offense taken 'i' hope!

No offense taken, I am willing to take advice from almost anyone. The older the better. Experience is one of the best teachers.

As I have mentioned I think both sides in this debate have used questionable tactics, and I am as guilty as anyone else.

<quoted text>You know I have not said that...in fact I have posted the "timeline" of importance to the Public many, many times to your chagrin....Here it is yet again....we are currently in the "environmental Assessment" (EA) of the FAA timeline. The BOAC has submitted their info for the EA and is waiting for questions or any additional info the FAA may request. If there is none. The FAA will either (based on the information) be able to issue or not issue a FONSI which is a finding of no significant environmental impact.If a FONSI is issued....THEN there will be a public meeting at which the public will have a chance to make meaningful objection (by FAA standards) to the FAA. This is the part we (the concerned citizens of Dec County) have hired the Federal attorney / Aviation Specialist and former FAA attorney to address on our behalf.There is a 30 day period minimum of appeal after this meeting...it can be slightly longer depending on what the FAA puts in place.If we and the public can appeal meaningfully to the FAA on this issue it can be thrown into yet another step. If not...then the FONSI will stand and the BOAC will now be eligible to apply for FAA grants for the expansion. Once they receive the first grant towards the expansion ...that is the point of no return....unless of course we immediatley return the funds...as to not go forward at the point of the receival of the grant ...then the FAA would demand repayment. Each grant recieved comes with a 20 year obligation to comply with FAA standards and compliances.Operation of the airport and the expense involved is where these airports specifically (according to the info I have previously provided) fall back on the taxpayers to support. Again if Greenwood IN who has a comparably sized airport to what they want here ...but with four times the population and is a bedroom community of Indinapolis cannot afford their current airport.....how can we?we currently have a 32 acre airport. they want to expand to in excess of 240 acrs....just think of just the mowing on that area?Then there is snow removal. While they just purchased $180,000.00 snow removal equipment with grant money from the FAA...now they have the problem of no where to house it....and then who will operate it? all for free?these are just two tiny examples.....I can only hope they look before they leap. Times are tough and every dollar counts.With so many cities looking to sell or close their airports because of the economy...and considering Brack Rayles stats....is this the best investment of dollars for our community?

I know you have posted the timeline again and again, and I personally understand it.

Yet you turn around and make the following statement:

Quote by Jean: "But what is misleading is the BOAC can obligate us to the FAA fully (by accepting grants that will have to be repaid if we do not proceed) before we ever need to come up with that money through the City Council / taxpayers". End quote.

Doesn't the statement above make it appear to the general public there is no timeline, or that it is irrelevant?

You are saying the BOAC can accept grants that will have to be repaid if we do not proceed. The decision to proceed or not, based on the timeline, is after the FONSI and public hearing.

Unless of course, you are talking about all the grants the BOAC has already received?

So are you saying the FAA can offer grant money to the BOAC for the Airport CIP before the FONSI and the public hearing? So what use would a timeline be then?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.